Maharashtra’s remission rules for kidnapping for ransom cover IPC 364A, Bombay HC orders life convict’s release subject to pending appeal

The petitioners were convicted in 2007 of, among other offences, kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A read with Section 120B of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The High Court later acquitted them of murder under Section 302 read with Section 120B, while affirming the life sentence for the Section 364A offence.

Petitioner No. 1 challenged the State’s 22 September 2025 order categorising her under category 6(d) of the Maharashtra Government Resolution (GR) dated 15 March 2010, which required her to serve 30 years’ imprisonment with remissions.

By the time of decision, she had completed 20 years of actual imprisonment and 26 years with remissions; an appeal by the State remained pending before the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the State correctly categorised petitioner No. 1 under category 6(d) of the 2010 GR, applicable to prisoners whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment, despite her acquittal of murder.

2. Whether category 7(a) of Annexure II to the 2010 GR, describing persons guilty of kidnapping for ransom, applied to her Section 364A conviction and permitted her release.

3. Whether petitioner No. 1 could be released subject to conditions while the State’s appeal remained pending before the Supreme Court.

Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confer powers relating to remission and commutation; Section 433A restricts their exercise by requiring at least 14 years’ imprisonment in specified cases, and Section 435 requires consultation with the Central Government in certain cases.

The Maharashtra GR dated 15 March 2010 sets separate premature-release categories for offences involving murder in Annexure I and offences not involving murder in Annexure II; category 6(d) of Annexure I concerns prisoners whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment, while category 7(a) of Annexure II provides for 16 years’ imprisonment, including remissions, subject to a minimum of 10 years’ actual imprisonment, for persons guilty of kidnapping for ransom.

Under M/s. Frick India Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 400, a heading cannot control clear operative words; where a heading is ambiguous, it may assist interpretation but cannot cut down the provision’s plain meaning.

Because petitioner No. 1 had been acquitted of murder, the Court held that the provisions for murder-related cases—including category 6(d), concerning commuted death sentences—did not apply to her.

It then read category 7(a) of Annexure II according to its operative description, “persons guilty of kidnapping for ransom.” Although its heading referred to Section 364 rather than Section 364A, the description captured the offence for which petitioner No. 1 was convicted; the heading could not displace those clear words.

The Court also considered that a woman convicted of premeditated murder would fall under category 1(b) of Annexure I, with a 20-year period, and concluded that the GR should not be applied so as to require a longer period from petitioner No. 1, who was acquitted of murder.

Given her completed period of imprisonment and the pending Supreme Court appeal, the Court ordered release subject to conditions and preserved the State’s ability to revisit categorisation after the appeal.

Release was subject to providing her residential address and contact details, quarterly attendance at the nearest police station, and obtaining prior permission of the Court before leaving India.

The order was made subject to the Supreme Court’s decision, with liberty to the State to revisit categorisation afterward; the interim application, writ petition and pending criminal applications were disposed of.